We became accustomed to the PPP/C government not caring much about the distinction that should exist between politicians and public – particularly top public – servants. Thus, former ministers were given public service contracts, spoke on political platforms and organised political activities for the ruling party, and now being required to relinquish their positions by the new regime, are crying discrimination. Public servants have been allowed to become involved in clearly partisan political picketing and still believe that they are right to claim discrimination when asked to vacate office by the new government.
At another level, we have had the examples of senior public servants, e.g. the head of the presidential secretariat (resigning or not), taking to political hustings and then reappearing in the same position after successful elections. President Desmond Hoyte and his People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), joined by many in civil society, made a huge issue over this matter.
In this context, it may be useful to observe that in an attempt to circumvent criticism, the new regime, rather than change the practice, has nonchalantly changed the rules so that the functions of the head of the presidential secretariat are now deemed political and performed by a politician, namely a minister of state!
The PPP/C government appeared to have believed that once a legal contract of employment was established between an individual and the public service establishment, that person should be secure in employment with the coming of a new regime regardless of their activities during the previous regime! But the truth of the matter is that in our ethno/political context, the perceptions -and in a few cases the reality – of discriminatory employment and dismissal of state employees of immediate past regimes have persisted and will continue to do so until we can properly fix our broken political system.
We need to have in place an arrangement that will either prevent regime longevity or establish special checks and balances to facilitate public servants’ independence if we expect regimes to stay in office for long periods.
This issue will not be considered here, but even in the absence of such reforms we can begin now by establishing a clear distinction between the offices and role of politicians and bureaucrats and put in place arrangements to protect the bureaucracy and particularly top bureaucrats who must interface on a daily basis with politicians in what is a very vague politico/managerial context.
It appears that it is the government’s intention to continue with our Westminster tradition. Thus, during a meeting with the heads of government agencies and permanent secretaries, President David Granger is reported to have said that under his administration, public servants will be held to a code of conduct rooted in strict professionalism, transparency and integrity. According to him, the civil service must be composed of persons of integrity who are capable of giving advice without fear or favour, partiality or prejudice. ‘We cannot function without a public service and if the public service tries to be politicians there will be catastrophe, there will be administrative catastrophe, the public service must live by different rules.’ Politicians, he claimed, are the representatives of their constituencies and ‘whoever comes into office as your political minister, the public servant must be prepared to work without reservation and with devotion for the success of that administration’ (Granger touts a professional public service. KN 21/5/2015).
To elaborate on this administrative outlook specifically as it relates to the central government, civil servants must serve their political masters, be strictly impartial about party politics and ministerial policies and must not enter the political fray. Ministers must not ask civil servants to perform political tasks and appointment and promotion in the civil service should not involve political considerations or be affected by a change in government. Even parliamentary committees must not ask civil servants questions in the field of political controversy.
As the president has stated, civil servants should give their ministers their best advice without fear or favour, but it is for the ministers to defend departmental policy in public. The advice civil servants give their ministers is confidential and they should not be required to reveal it in public (Budge et al. (2007) The New British Politics. Routledge), and parliamentary committees must not ask questions about the conduct of particular civil servants or about the advice they give their ministers. In essence, public servants should be anonymous.
How come, then, my longtime friend Hydar Ally has been praised as the archetypal permanent secretary (Hydar Ally retires to plaudits from gov’t. SN 20/8/2015)?
Make no mistake, from a personal and technical professional standpoint, much of what the government has said about Hydar is true, added to which, he has a keen understanding of the education system, which we spent hours discussing. I believe that he fell foul of some of his colleagues in the PPP sanctum sanctorum a few years ago for daring to speak of the need for shared governance, and I believe he is still of that mind. Thus my concern here has nothing to do with Hydar personally.
If we hold to the president’s and traditional vision of the perfect public servant, Hydar Ally cannot fit into that mould. He has been a senior executive member of the PPP for as long as I can remember while also being senior public servant, and the latter position did not prevent him from consistently expressing pro-PPP views in his many contributions to the press, etc.
It appears to me that, stung by the criticism that it was discriminating in its public service dismissal and employment policies, the new government latched on to Hydar because of the honourable role he is believed to have played in the Jennifer Westford vehicle affair.
We should be wary when partisan political necessity trumps the fundamental requirements of good governance. The danger in this case is that by contradicting its own conceptual vision, the government has created a dangerous and retrogressive precedent.
